It was strictly meant as a reference to a book that I know that Jay has used as reference in the past, not a burn against the book itself. The point was specifically meant to be that, just because something wasn't written into a How-To-Write book, doesn't mean that it's wrong.
I heard the difference between an amateur and a pro is that the pro can write when it's hard. He or she doesn't give up.
I am enjoying this thread so much, you have no idea (munches popcorn) P.S. Finished chapter 22 (of 30) today. I'm on a roll!
Ok, I asked because GMC is some of the points of story that Truby (says there is 22 steps/points) and McGee (doesn't say, but goes on about what a good story should have and GMC is three of them) put down, but that book looks like it may put more focus on those three. I agree. There is a lot of info out there and some people may need guidance to know what they should look for. When I post a list, it's usually ones that have made me see something I didn't see before. Otherwise, I'm not a big giver of ****s and my resolution is to give less ****s than I did the year before.
I don't know - I'm sure there have been people that have died while still working to become a professional (paid for doing it) at some task or other, writing included. Just because you don't give up doesn't mean you're going to get published. And congrats, TDF! Eight more to go!
I can't guard any side of the fence. I think good writing can be taught, but the student has to be willing to learn and work. At the same time, some people just never will produce anything of worth, just as some people can never be president or a doctor or a CEO.
I just hate this idea that, if you haven't read someone's Ho-To book, you obviously have no concept of what's good and what's not. Like reading one of Jack Bickham's many writing guide books is going to magically endow me with the knowledge that I need to go from horrible first draft to amazing best-selling novel that will be followed by SEVENTY-FOUR other novels, which will all, then, endow me with the right to make my OWN, How-to-Write book. I have my own plan of what to do when I write and edit my own stories, by virtue of knowing what I've liked when I've read books of a similar genre. For now? My audience is me. So, I'm going to write for me, and edit to suit me. Who knows. Maybe, someday, I will read a how-to-write book (though, I've been severely turned off Jack Bickham, at this point). I'm sure there's something useful to be read in some or most of them. I would never say that they are completely useless and that a reader will do harm to themselves by reading them. God KNOWS that that would be over-stepping my boundaries and would make me sound more ignorant than most of you probably already think I do. But I think that there's something to be said about the personal pursuance of a good novel without those books. Of discovering, of your own volition, what you think works and doesn't work. At the very least, one can think of it as dipping your toe in the water before you dive in. Let your own imagination take its course before you taper it down with "rules," and "specific, correct structure." At the end of the day, it is you, as the author, who takes the first step toward deciding whether or not that novel will see the light of day. Not Jack Bickham, not Ray Bradburry, not Stephen King, not Deb Dexon. But you (me), the writer.
I certainly don't try to put that face out there, but I've read "The Grapes of Wrath" and "Shadowdale." The former needs little discourse, but the latter was a TSR book based on the D&D game, set in the forgotten realms. The former was an awesome book while the latter was so terrible I didn't get past 1/3 of it and I didn't know why it was so repulsive, but it was a pivotal moment to discover why. I/we could say it was terrible writing, but that's too vague. Of course it was terrible writing, but why? I'm wishing I kept the book because it would be a great case study, but my sensibilities, so offended, required I sacrifice it and its kin to gods of half price books. Even the Dri'zzt series lost my interest after the first of them.
Need? It matters not at all to me is you write using a mystery 8-ball to supply the prose. But when you begin to strongly advise new writers to use techniques that demonstrably do not work for you, you're screwing with someone else's career. If someone takes my advice and it doesn't work for them what have they lost? The time to read a book. Big deal. What did it cost? Zero. If they follow your advice and you're wrong they have just bypassed an entire career, because while the information in a book can be ignored, there is no endpoint to "Don't study," Only continued failure. Lets add to that that you're stating things that aren't even close to being accurate. Your argument that if one reads 100 books on writing they will get 100 different and conflicting views on how to write—and that they're only saying, "This is how I write" is unfounded and cannot be supported in the real world. And if I'm a fanatic for accuracy put it down to my background in engineering, where things have to work in the real-world. And because you've not taken the time to actually read the books you're condemning you haven't yet learned that none of them talk about how the author writes a novel. None. To even suggest that someone who earned the title, Honored Professor, is simply saying, "This is how I write," is ludicrous. You don't care how the the people who write such books write. Okay. You believe that the people who make their living through their writing have nothing to teach you when they talk about how it's done. That's okay, too. Now all you have to do is explain how, by reading the novels they wrote you'll figure out how they did it. Yet you don't know any of those people personally and cannot say with the smallest bit of assurance that they didn't. You only believe that to be true. I performed an interesting experiment recently, in response to someone else who held your view. I took last years NYT best seller list and started at the top, looking at those writers who had a Wikipedia entry—and that was most. Not one of them used the, "I just write what comes to me and then polish it," method. Not one. In fact not one failed to have some literary training. But back to your statement that I'm only big on learning craft because it worked for me. Given that someone who has as little writing talent as I do does say something, I think. But okay. What worked for you? If your approach is equal or better, show me the evidence. Don't point to someone you've never met and know nothing about. Until you can point to someone who can actually be questioned, who achieved recent and multiple publication without having taken classes, attending workshops, or mentoring by a pro, you've proved nothing. I don't doubt your belief and sincerity. And I am definitely not interested in starting an argument thaqt ends up with you and I hogging all the space in any thread. The only reason I've responded as I have is because you brought up the idea that knowing craft is unnecessary, and raised points that are demonstrably inaccurate. My point is simple: Every other profession and trade requires the practitioner to learn the craft of the professional. All require mentoring. All measure competence against some known scale of success in using that learned craft. To believe that fiction writing for the printed word, uniquely, has no craft, stories have no predictable structure and common elements that must be learned, is a fantasy. Call me misguided if you will, stupid if you care to. I don't mind. But you are not going to convince me that ignorance is a better path to success. And other then the quote below, that's all I have to say in this thread. “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’ ” ~ Isaac Asimov
Writing is a craft that requires learning, studying, and practice. How one does those things is not written in stone, and there is no one method which will guarantee success. If there were, we'd all be rich as Stephen King...
I have one thing, and one thing alone, to say in response to that: I have never once said that someone shouldn't read a "How-to-Write" book, or that it would somehow damage them. In fact, the part where I specifically said: ...was, conveniently, grazed over. My only purpose in my response to the How-to-Write books was that they don't necessarily solve a writer's problems, guarantee success, and are not the *$%@ing bible. They are books written by people to try to help aspiring writers, that may give you a good basis on how to improve your craft, or that you may chuck to the side. I will quote myself, once more, to try and hope to drive my point home.
How did this thread mutate into "how-to-books vs reading"? Didn't we have a thread for that already? Talk about hot topic that sneaks in everywhere! Like the old debates about outline or no outline... ahh, those were the days.... I agree with what someone else said above. Some more info won't harm anyone. Writers already tend to read a lot (most of them at least) so if someone ALSO reads a how-to-book he will probably know more than the one who doesn't. I don't even see these as either or, rather as a complement.
Without being too patronizing, I don't think this is such a good idea. In the end, you may find the critic you that you have to live with, a very difficult person. You see, ultimately, I find the notion of I write for myself, a bunch of hooey.
That's one of the benefits of extensive outlining, where you kinda figure everything out in advance. Saves alotta time. The way you're doing it, you're going to need to do some serious chopping. It might not take you that long to rewrite it, because you've got a bit of direction this time. Good luck. I feel your pain.
I'm still not sure where anyone said that once books on writing structure were read you'd have to sign a contract that would forever engender you to obey every possible "rule" put forward in those books. Most of the ones I've read so far, actually encourage the reader to go forth and read and study other great writers. Some of these books go so far as to offer reading lists that go far beyond Stephan King and Stephanie Meyers.
Who says it hasn't worked for me?? That I am looking to be published for the first time at my age is a function of any number of life circumstances, some of which have also proven useful in my education as a writer, but most of which had nothing to do with writing. In the meantime, I have not only provided myself with a rich literary education, I have also had great enjoyment through difficult times. I happen to think that you do novice writers a grave disservice in suggesting that all they have to do to succeed is to read a book of technique, and - voila! - welcome to the world of publishing. That's like saying that someone who wishes to be a composer need only learn music theory, and they will be able to write a new Beethoven's Ninth. I also find your comparison of writing fiction to building bridges particularly off-putting. For someone who stridently denies advocating a one-size-fits-all approach, you certainly seem to be promoting exactly that. You know there is more to becoming a writer than that because you've been through it. You said yourself in another thread that you turned to Bickham's book after several failed attempts to be published. Did you ever stop to think that your prior reading efforts needed only a catalyst to pull it all together, and that reading Bickham was your "Aha!" moment? One can read all the books on technique on the shelf, but there has to be something else to give it all meaning. Besides, there are other catalysts available, such as writings of literary criticism. I said in the "Final Showdown" thread that it all boils down to learning styles. Nothing you have posted there or since has changed my view on that.
As I said, I'm my own audience, for now. I'm the type of person that would never be willing to put a book out there unless I was comfortable and confident with it. So, until I know that I like something, I'm not going to bother with what anyone else likes. I'm obviously not the end-all-be-all of a writer, and my word will not be the final law (otherwise, I'd be the one deciding who gets published, and you could all bow down).
I think writing for oneself is great, but it is possible to do that while taking an eventual reader in consideration, if you would like to. it's also good practise for the future. But until you feel confident enough to submit your work, writing without any thoughts about your target reader will probably only do you good. I think it teaches us to "just write", without worrying about what other people would think and that ability will probably be beneficial when you decide to write for others as well.
I do this and it seems to work very well for me. I write stories that I want to read , with themes, characters and scenes that I enjoy. And because I'm a much fussier reader than most people I've met, this results in a story that many people want to read. BUT I also know that some things I want to read are of no interest to most people, so I tone down or remove those parts during the revision process. This approach keeps me interested while writing, but also takes the audience into consideration.
I think it all depends on what you mean by 'writing for the reader'. Keeping in mind how easy it is for the reader to understand, how quickly the story flows, suspension of belief, correcting distracting grammar/spelling issues - those are all things I think you should do with the reader in mind. But basic plot? Characters? Style? It's really hard to 'write for the reader' in those cases because readers are going to have ALL kinds of different experiences and opinions in reading the same work. How can you predict or write to all of that? What I always saw, on message boards like these, is write for yourself because you can't predict the reader with absolute accuracy. You can only predict yourself as the reader, and know what that kind of reader will like. It's like trying to predict the writing market ten years down the line.
No, plot no! You write the story you want to write, the way you see it, and you try to make the reader as fascinated by it as you are. Make them see what you see, what got you interested in the idea.
I don't feel like we're disagreeing! Some people will love your idea and execution as you loved it - and some won't. How well you do that does effect your chances of more people liking it, though.
me neither I was just clarifying that I didn't mean that way, that you should somehow adapt to the market when it comes to story ideas, characters or settings. Every writer should always write the stories (I mean stories in the general sense, not short stories) he's passionate about, without bothering what is "in" at the moment or what people want to read. Whatever you write there will be people who like it and people who doesn't. And the best way, IMHO, to write something many people like, is to write out of passion, because that will rub off on what you write.
